pvxfandomcom-20200214-history
PvXwiki:Admin noticeboard/Resolved Build-Specific Issues/Archive 13
User:Leyton Boss's vote shows lack of game mechanics. [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 02:37, 13 November 2007 (CET) :also, User:Yagami is voting on an entirely different build. OoP/Bip is the basis of the build, switching to OoV/Br changes everything.--Coloneh 02:54, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::In all fairness, as much as I hate to lose a 4.7 vote, both of them should be removed, or at least revised by the users. Both seem to lack an understanding of the build's specific mechanics and purpose, perhaps. cedave ( _buildpage) 02:25, 14 November 2007 (CET) User:Tom sama and User:Haxx both voted with no contributions, probably socks. --- [[User:Ressmonkey|'Ressmonkey']] [[User Talk:Ressmonkey|(talk)]] 20:02, 12 November 2007 (CET) Many votes pretty much invalid. Survivability on a sin is pretty lawl, especially since it has an extra slot for hex breaker, or something like it. It also has Siphon speed, which can act as a defensive snare as well as cripple and KD. Damage is hugely lacking, I agree, to an SP sin. Yes this is entirely true. However the main purpose is to shutdown and snare the caster target and add pressure. DoT is pretty decent (Jungle strike is nice dmg as well as Trampling) and it has DW. Lann compares this to the Unblockable Fire build which makes me wanna cry. Vorrax says it's not very strong against non-spellcasters. This is very true. But if you go after melee with SoS you deserve to lose. Darkstone says pre-veiling poses a problem. Yes it does, but not as much as with other assassin builds (again compare mostly to SP). This has a relativly fast casting, cheap and fast recharging snare which a monk will most likely remove. Baiting veil with ss is relativly easy. /endrant [[User:Swiftslash|'Swiftslash \\']] ( *''sandbox'') 17:50, 10 November 2007 (CET) BCTurk and Gredinus make completely irrelevant points. 1 for universitility because of walls means every ranger build deserves that 1, which is bullshit. The build has absolutely nothing to do with Corrupt Enchantments. — Skakid9090 22:27, 5 November 2007 (CET) :In addition, User:Doug Mcfawn has no contributions, User:Newman's vote fails to explain his vote properly. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 03:17, 6 November 2007 (CET) ::Resolved. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 05:31, 7 November 2007 (CET) I still don't see why using 2 skills to do 2 functions (spread blind and give good defense) is "needlessly complex" — Skakid9090 16:06, 6 November 2007 (CET) :Given some people, it might be. :/ Lord Belar 22:47, 6 November 2007 (CET) ::Because people dont want skill.--Shadowsin 03:41, 7 November 2007 (CET) :::Deja vu. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 03:59, 7 November 2007 (CET) :::No skills? Like this? ::: :::Lord Belar 04:03, 7 November 2007 (CET) ::::I'd 5-5-5 that. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 04:03, 7 November 2007 (CET) :::::Someone needs to submit that and see how long it lasts. Lord Belar 04:04, 7 November 2007 (CET) ::::::It's been submitted thrice — Skakid9090 04:04, 7 November 2007 (CET) :::::::Must have missed that... Lord Belar 04:05, 7 November 2007 (CET) :::::::I'm almost sure you mean twice. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 04:06, 7 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::User:Victoryisyours/Build:Any/any All Around Ownage, got deleted.--19px[[User:Victoryisyours|'Victory']][[User talk:Victoryisyours|'is']] 04:07, 7 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::That should be vetted 5-5-5! :P Lord Belar 04:09, 7 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::Small problem. -- Armond Warblade 10:48, 12 November 2007 (CET) Fire Tock. Lord Belar 05:33, 8 November 2007 (CET) :It's unfavored anyways... - Krowman 05:37, 8 November 2007 (CET) ::It's the spirit of the thing. We don't want to give the impression that we're lenient about invalid votes. Lord Belar 05:45, 8 November 2007 (CET) :::Removing it would reduce it 4 votes, sending it back to testing, requiring another user to shoot it down, then send it back to trash. Not to mention any user rage that often follows a vote removal. This time, it's better to just sleeping dogs lie. - Krowman 07:06, 8 November 2007 (CET) Needs all of its rating removed - it's been moved back to the trial stage. Kumpeet.talk. 16:59, 8 November 2007 (CET) :Done. Build author, be mindful of PvX:WELL. - Krowman 19:59, 8 November 2007 (CET) Ratraider has no contribs. Lord Belar 23:59, 8 November 2007 (CET) :Foreverwafer. - Krowman 03:28, 9 November 2007 (CET) And swift thief has no real reason. Lord Belar 03:31, 9 November 2007 (CET) Kiji is rating high in an attempt to skew ratings upward. Lord Belar 19:15, 10 November 2007 (CET) Warboss72 has no contribs. Lord Belar 20:25, 11 November 2007 (CET) Anyone? Lord Belar 22:26, 12 November 2007 (CET) I changed the ele heroes from Dual attunement + RI to SF. Since all the votes are based on that, would one of you mind removing them? Thanks. --Mafaraxas 07:31, 9 November 2007 (CET) :Resolved. — [[User:Tycn|'Tycn']] (''talk''* ) 08:38, 9 November 2007 (CET) Voter is blatantly showing he's neither used shattering assault or this build in PvE. — Skakid9090 00:59, 10 November 2007 (CET) :Hope I got the right voter... ;D - Krowman 07:51, 10 November 2007 (CET) ::skakid's has to be updated or removed, he's talking bout crit defenses. - Y0_ich_halt 14:33, 11 November 2007 (CET) Needs purge or revert. - Y0_ich_halt 14:34, 11 November 2007 (CET) :Purge via deletion complete. -- Armond Warblade 15:36, 11 November 2007 (CET) The user Skakid9090 rates this build 'Shit wammo' - There is no reasoning here? - Boss 16:17, 11 November 2007 (CET) :Sounds valid to me. Lord Belar 20:26, 11 November 2007 (CET) User compares build to Critical Barrager when both builds have completely different usage. One is focused on AoE damage, the other on single target health degeneration, different usage and different concept. Offer absolutely no reason as to why the build deserves a Trash rating whatsoever. I don't expect it to be Great, but Trash it is certainly not. Unreal Havoc 18:16, 11 November 2007 (CET) :Hmm, 7 Degen on one target, or good damage on up to 7... He is correct I would say. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 18:25, 11 November 2007 (CET) ::That depends on the usage as I stated. The purpose of this isn't AoE damage. It isn't a Barrager, it isn't trying to be one, and it has a different usage and concept in both PvE and AB. Unreal Havoc 18:38, 11 November 2007 (CET) :::Doesn't make it not inferior. -- Armond Warblade 07:23, 12 November 2007 (CET) ::::Could say the same about a Critical Barrager compared to a Splinter Barrager. Does that make this a Trash build? Sorry, I though Trash was something that doesn't work, this clearly does. Unreal Havoc 10:39, 12 November 2007 (CET) :::::What's your excuse for taking it over the crit barrager? (And while we're at it, BA is a better elite choice.) That said, what's your excuse for taking a crit barrager over a splinter barrager? Ever since the introduction of shambling horrors crit barragers have been meh. Which says something about builds inferior to crit barragers. =\ -- Armond Warblade 10:46, 12 November 2007 (CET) :::::Trash is for all builds that don't stand out. The Other category, our lowest, is composed of the top fortieth or so of all builds submitted here. Your build doesn't stand out, tbh. It gains some DPS and the ability to spread poison semi-rapidly at the cost of a knockdown, a secondary, and a fistful of attribute points. Your given example is an entirely different case, because the take-off (Crit-Barrager) has (or had) a directly equitable trade-off, damage for survivability. Your build might work fine, but it isn't good enough to be archived here. --71.229.204.25 10:51, 12 November 2007 (CET) In the votes of the above build, Master of Water has given a completely unreasonable vote (IMHO). Could you please do something about it as he has not yet responded to my comment on his talk page? Thanks. --Whyareall 07:10, 12 November 2007 (CET) PS What the BLOODY HELL happened to my build?!?!?!--Whyareall 06:52, 13 November 2007 (CET) :It was deleted as per PvX:WELL. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 06:55, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::Did you read 'Addendum: Don't Delete Immdediately'?!?!--Whyareall 06:57, 13 November 2007 (CET) :::a) I didn't delete it. b) I wrote said Addendum. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 06:58, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::::a)Well then who did? b)Why did you talk as if you didn't after my first post?--Whyareall 07:01, 13 November 2007 (CET) :::::In keeping with format: a) Armond, b) I'm not sure what that means really... [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 07:02, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::::::It had already been mentioned that it was inferior to another build, so I figured that was a long enough wait. Also, you should know we don't keep builds simply because they're easier to set up - read WELL. To be honest, the addendum doesn't apply to those. -- Armond Warblade 07:04, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::::DE, I don't think you could find a bigger cock to slap him with if you tried. XD --71.229.204.25 21:42, 13 November 2007 (CET) I've been cruising around some builds and seen that someone gave 0-0-0 for this build by saying.. this only shuts down casters and not melee.. don't we all kill the monk? :) Tomoko 10:22, 13 November 2007 (CET) :Thnx DE Tomoko 10:37, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::DE's asleep, though I suppose I could change my name :P -- Armond Warblade 10:40, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::Hmmmm... it appears I'm capable of making edits in my sleep... I was unaware of this ability :P [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 16:26, 13 November 2007 (CET) :::Given some of the things I've seen you do on RC, I wouldn't be overly surprised... just scared. -- Armond Warblade 21:40, 13 November 2007 (CET) Should this build be nominated for other areas of PvP? Perhaps those with less enchant-removal? I've never GvG'd, so I dunno whether this'd be appropriate. Shen( ) 22:59, 13 November 2007 (CET) I was just wondering if someone can look into Build:R/D_Grenth%27s_Interrupter. Someone randomly came by and put the build up as a candidate for deletion by basis of PvX:WELL. Thing is, he left no explanation, either on that page, nor on the talk. Can someone possibly look into this? - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 00:17, 14 November 2007 (CET) :Inferior to Build:R/Mo Broad Head Arrow Ranger, as was mentioned on the talk page. -- Armond Warblade 02:07, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::Does that give you the authority to delete the build on a whim as you did? I believe that is the COMMUNITY'S decision, not yours. Again, another example of the horribly oppressive and noobishly biased administration here. - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 02:10, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::My apologies. I just reviewed the PVX:WELL policy and I can see that you do have the authority to delete the build. Though I do not agree that the build violates that policy, I will respect your decision. I still think y'all are horrible nazi's for admins, however. - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 02:17, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::THERE IS NO APOSTROPHE IN "NAZIS," CITIZEN, AS YOUR SENTENCE DOES NOT REGARD NAZI POSSESSION OF ANYTHING. --Pentient Engine Grammaticus 02:19, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::Don't you have anything better to do than troll my posts....like go out and buy a keyboard that does not have the caps lock button stuck? - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 02:29, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::: Seeing as you changed your view, yet still harbor resentment, I will still post my response to your outburst. :::Our Admins can be trusted to act in good faith, for they wouldn't have been given such abilities as vote removal and build deletion without some solid in-game credentials. Hardly a 'whim'...rather, common sense. As for your 'community', there is no way that build would've survived vetting. You can either learn from the community or retain your 'noobish bias'. Shen( ) 02:23, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::Well, the admins here are extremely biased, and half of them lack general common sense. This is what happens when you let a bunch of 13 year olds in charge. I believe that some of the policies here are severely flawed, one of which is the PVX:WELL policy. However, I am one of the only voices willing to be outspoken against it, so I do not anticipate getting anywhere. However, I will not shut up, and I will keep my opinions. That build may not have survived vetting, but it has gotten me more glad points than a BHA build because of its ability to keep an entire team dazed and interrupted. In reality, it was a BETTER build, with the available slots to add in the "blocking or healing skills" that was said it lacked. Instead of assisting in making the build better, it was decided that it was better to just delete it. You ever hear of a talk page? It is where builds are DISCUSSED and PERFECTED. - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 02:29, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::Here's another policy while you're at it. PvX:NPA. Mind it or you'll get banned. :) --71.229.204.25 02:32, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::Then ban me. Not that it will do much, to be honest. All you do is shut out an active contributor just because I spoke on RELATIVE terms about people in general on this website. I targeted no particular person. - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 02:39, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::If I called everyone on this site faggots, I'd be speaking on relative terms and they'd still be right to ban me. And tbh, that build would never have survived vetting. --71.229.204.25 02:43, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::I am really not all that upset about the build not surviving. More of my frustration was because when I went to go review the build, I noticed it was deleted. Now, I realize after the fact, that the admins have the authority to delete like that. However, when it was deleted, it was not even tagged to be deleted any longer. Someone else had reverted that. I do not know if the admin still had the authority to delete it, since it was no longer tagged, but I just let that go. I believe that there should be a waiting period before builds are deleted, so that users have the ability to discuss on the talk page why it is not a good build. What if I didn't get online? My build would just have been totally gone and never would have known why. I don't like a policy that gives an admin the right to just be like "your build sucks *delete* ". I mean, I had to come here to get an explanation why the build was initially put up as a candidate for deletion because the user that flagged it did not post one ounce about it. This is one of the flaws I see in the policies. I really do feel there should be a waiting period before deletion. - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 02:49, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::In the time it took me to type up a response to your claims, you had already digressed. At any rate, the build's concept was clearly flawed: a concensus deducible from any group of half-decent players. I can run any build and get glad points, that's not a valid argument. Rather than argue over the obvious imperfections, Armond deleted the build, under the assumption further controversy would be quieted. As this obviously isn't the case, I invite you to argue the effectiveness of this build on a different page so I may shoot down any favorable views toward it, though arguing with you gets me in circles. Shen( ) 03:01, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::Haha, as much as I do not believe you meant that to be funny, it did make me chuckle. Glad I can make you dizzy with my debates! I try very mercilessly. :-) - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 03:07, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::::As much as I do not believe you meant to be condescending... Shen( ) 03:14, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::::I wasn't being condescending there. I was being playfully sarcastic. - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 03:16, 14 November 2007 (CET) No one cares how many glad points you get with a build. Good players get glad points with echo mending because they're bored. If someone had removed the delete tag, they did so wrongfully and between the time I hit the "delete" button and the "confirm delete" button (during which time I can't look at the page and thus couldn't tell said tag was removed). -- Armond Warblade 04:32, 14 November 2007 (CET) :The tag was deleted by Lord Belar, someone I don't even know, and it was a considerable amount of time before you deleted the build. Someone even responded about the tag deletion in the Talk page, and I am sure if you did your job, you would be aware of this. However, what is done is done. I didn't expect it to pass the retarded scrutiny of the active ones on PvX, anyway. - [[User:Lord_Xivor|† Lord Xivor †]] 16:02, 14 November 2007 (CET) WTB Archive, thank ye gods. Perhaps pending the week-end's confirmation, but may Izzy be blessed for this nerf. cedave ( _buildpage) 02:29, 14 November 2007 (CET) :Nerf sucks, gfg sins. — Skakid9090 02:33, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::Nerf is win. SP has needed to die for a while, and this is certainly an acceptable and amazing way to do it, imho. I have to say, it's about fucking time. Next up: Dervish? Lord knows those scythe-wielding pansycocks need to take a hit. cedave ( _buildpage) 02:41, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::This won't kill SP. Black Mantis -> Jungle -> Trampling -> Falling Lotus -> Twisting Fangs, or something. All it did was destroy the most fun assassin skill in the game. ): --71.229.204.25 02:45, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::I beg to differ. SP relies on its ability to use 4 skills to do a nice, quick spike with room leftover, imo. Who knows, though. I'm just glad it finally took a hit. cedave ( _buildpage) 02:55, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::Where have you been for the last six months? It's been taking hits practically since Factions came out. And SP has been relying on five skills for a while now - BLS HotO BSS BOS Impale. --71.229.204.25 02:58, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::That is if you weren't smart enough to realize Death Blossom did more damage than BoS, or the same amount. And if you didn't take Twisting Fangs like a good boy. As for it taking hits since factions came out, so has everything else. I get the feeling that the BLS nerf was targeted for SP though, so I'm rather happy, seeing as the BSS nerf did nothing. cedave ( _buildpage) 03:02, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::I'm just pissed about the HotO nerf, the BLS -> lead nerf would have done just fine at screwing this build. --71.229.204.25 03:04, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::Yeah.. if they keep that HotO nerf, I get the feeling this'll get the biggest QQ since Gale. cedave ( _buildpage) 03:06, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::Already got one on Izzy's page. --71.229.204.25 03:10, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::I bet there'll be more to come, too. I won't quit though. I'm not on enough to be bothered by it, and I can't even remember the last time I used HotO anyway. The more users who QQ because of this, the better, imo. Get rid of all the uncreative punkshots out there. cedave ( _buildpage) 03:15, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::Hard to be creative with assassin chains. I can either bring cripple and Trampling Ox, use HotO to chain together rarely-used skills or just GPS/HotO/FS/BoS, use the SP chain, whore the four-recharge unblockables, or use MS/WTFever, that's about it. Anything else is so inferior it hurts. --71.229.204.25 03:21, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::::Or you could use an Assacaster build or a High-Output, Quick-Return build. Unfortunately, I've yet to see one posted up here. cedave ( _buildpage) 03:36, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::::Fuck assacasters and the only dual attacks that can give you that kind of damage output anymore are BoS, Shattering, and DB, and all three already have optimal builds associated. And with Recall worthless for anything but a modded SP 'sin and the HotO nerf making any potential AoD build either really clumsy or worthless solo, there aren't going to be any of those builds posted for a while. --71.229.204.25 03:44, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::::::Maybe Sin Tag Teams might become popular? But that would require decent gameplay and coordination. Oh noes.. GW is dun 4!!!1!11!! cedave ( _buildpage) 03:51, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::::::It would take much more coordination than a thumper or heroway team for less return. 'Sins are gonna be ignored for a while. --71.229.204.25 03:56, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::::::::Go look up my Toxic Arts build, then maybe rethink that statement. Assacasters are pretty powerful, especially when done right. cedave ( _buildpage) 03:59, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::::::::They are, but fuck assacasters. I'm talking about real assassins. D: --71.229.204.25 04:02, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::::::::::Meh. Iron Palm ftw? Who knows. I certainly don't care all that much about it. I'm gonna end my part of this conversation for now. I've gotta go do some copy editing for my school newspaper. It's been nice debating with you. If you want to continue this, just visit my talk page. cedave ( _buildpage) 04:09, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::::::::::Yeah, I'm gonna put a few minutes in later working on an Iron Palm build. :) --71.229.204.25 04:15, 14 November 2007 (CET) User:Leyton Boss's vote shows lack of game mechanics. [[User:Misfate|'Misfate']] 02:37, 13 November 2007 (CET) :also, User:Yagami is voting on an entirely different build. OoP/Bip is the basis of the build, switching to OoV/Br changes everything.--Coloneh 02:54, 13 November 2007 (CET) ::In all fairness, as much as I hate to lose a 4.7 vote, both of them should be removed, or at least revised by the users. Both seem to lack an understanding of the build's specific mechanics and purpose, perhaps. cedave ( _buildpage) 02:25, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::section was removed by Skakid9090 before issue was resolved.--Coloneh 22:54, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::::Sry this thing was huge and I didn't feel like going through them all =P — Skakid9090 22:57, 14 November 2007 (CET) Resolved. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 23:24, 14 November 2007 (CET) The first 3 ratings look suspicious. [[User:Viet|'Viet']] (''talk''* ) 00:04, 22 November 2007 (CET) :Resolved. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 18:26, 22 November 2007 (CET) ::You missed the 0-0-0? [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 18:27, 22 November 2007 (CET) Sock. And the 3 3 3 contradicts himself and doesnt make any sense. --Shadowsin 04:01, 22 November 2007 (CET) :3-3-3 makes sense. It's saying the build is too fragile. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 20:27, 22 November 2007 (CET) Tomoko didnt test the build and obviously dosnt understand it. Auron's vote really sont make any sense. and a few of the low ratings are pretty questionable.--Coloneh 07:29, 20 November 2007 (CET) :What's questionable? [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 07:37, 20 November 2007 (CET) ::all the ones about "o noes, no DW". its obviously a pressure build.--Coloneh 01:01, 21 November 2007 (CET) :::DW increases pressure significantly by lowering healing by 20 or 33%. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 20:28, 22 November 2007 (CET) Remove 2-2-2, 0-0-0, and 0-0-0 since it's archived because of a change and is likely to be changed back. — Skakid9090 22:14, 14 November 2007 (CET) :Changed back soon? Lord Belar 23:21, 14 November 2007 (CET) ::the change to black lotus (hex is optional, lead attack) is only for this week for now. - Y0_ich_halt 23:47, 14 November 2007 (CET) :::Archived so irrelevant. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 20:32, 22 November 2007 (CET) For once, I'm not here to complain about votes, but rather a delete tag recently applied by Defiant Elements. Now.. I understand the basis, but really now, would you rather I submit, as I've already stated on the build's talk page, a few dozen builds that all rely on the same basic idea? Or maybe you'd rather I just put a list of synergistic or nuking skills? Neither really benefits anyone, and really just wastes my time and the time of anyone looking for the build or reading the page. I personally like to hope that most people have at least a basic understanding of skill synergy and that they don't need to be led by the hand to figure out how to effectively apply skills. cedave ( _buildpage) 22:55, 16 November 2007 (CET) Votes regarding energy. though the chain does require 45 energy, the build can pull this off. The sin has 42 energy, MoI cast and aftercast will regen 1.33. Shadow Prison Unsuspecting will take about 1.7 seconds to pull off during which your energy regen will pull you up just enough to use tiger stance and lotus. High crit and dagger plus a zealous weapon allow for full energy by the next spike.Bob fregman 00:58, 19 November 2007 (CET) :I don't see how that disproves of "the combo costs 45 energy". That remains true. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 03:48, 19 November 2007 (CET) Evil Author Vote Tomoko 11:44, 20 November 2007 (CET) I put my build up as featured today, but Godess of Angels switched it to her/his going-to-be-welled build. Shown by the following link, the build I put up was only featured for barely an hour. http://www.pvxwiki.com/w/index.php?title=Template%3AFeatured_builds&diff=305412&oldid=305305 Shogunshen 03:22, 7 November 2007 (CET) :What, so no one is going to change it back? It's been a day now...can I change it back without fear of breaking some policy? Shogunshen 22:51, 7 November 2007 (CET) ::Feel free to undo it, but don't undo it 2x... ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 22:58, 7 November 2007 (CET) :::A similar thing happened to one of my builds-can we not make it so you can't switch a buil unless it's been up so many days or been vetted (if not already) this is probably directed more at Hippo and GC then anyone else but i'd like to see thoughts. PheNaxKian (T/ ) 23:04, 7 November 2007 (CET) ::::Vicious world out there in the featured builds section. If nothing else, the rc spam of changing the featured builds around will attract some attention. :P Lord Belar 23:08, 7 November 2007 (CET) ::::From what little I know of MediaWiki code, I can't think of a way to design a template to do that. Theoretically, I guess, we could protect the template and unlock it every 7 days (and only have Sysops remove builds that have passed through the vetting stage), but I don't think there's a way to actually make the template do that. [[user:Defiant Elements|'*Defiant Elements*']] ''+talk'' 18:59, 9 November 2007 (CET) :::::And I don't feel like changing it tbh... I say let it be, it's not THAT bad. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 23:12, 10 November 2007 (CET) ::::::Will be not so easy to do it automatically. Let's try first putting some clear rules on the template page and enforcing them. – [[User:Hhhippo|'HHHIPPO']] ‹sysop› 16:01, 11 November 2007 (CET) Remove Rapta's and Eloc's votes. It's obvious they don't understand its purpose. See talk page for details. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 22:06, 20 November 2007 (CET) :Responded on the build's talk page, mostly for general hilarity. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:00, 20 November 2007 (CET) ::If only to prove my point further. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 00:46, 21 November 2007 (CET) :::Their votes misrepresent the build's abilites. They vote as if it were to spike, and disregard half it's skills and the optional skill slot. A trash vote without substantial evidence other than "not effective" needs to be stricken. His hypothetical situation is easily fixed in the only area it need be. The only piece of actual evidence is expecting way too much. Should a build be trashed just because of a 4 second recharge between combos, all Shattering Assault assassins should follow suit. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 15:53, 21 November 2007 (CET) ::::1 optional skill slot doesn't make the difference in a build. § Eloc ''' 17:50, 22 November 2007 (CET) :::::What? [[User:Shogunshen| '''Shen]]( ) 17:52, 22 November 2007 (CET) Can someone check the ratings i got again and see whether they're relevant? I changed my build pretty much completely and tried to tell the people who previously rated it but only Shadowsin changed his rating.........if im not wrong their rating should be pretty much off topic (i dropped extend enchantments and vow of silence off the main build) CsAtlantis, 00:56, 21 November 2007 EVIL author vote! Tomoko 09:56, 21 November 2007 (CET) :Still trashed. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 20:34, 22 November 2007 (CET) EVIL authore vote again... shush shush bad authors bad authors Tomoko 10:22, 21 November 2007 (CET) :Just to let you know, authors are aloud to vote, and aloud to rate 5-5-5 as long as they have an explanation.-- [[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] (''talk''/ ) 12:57, 21 November 2007 (CET) ::Not if the build does not deserve the 555! Tomoko 13:48, 21 November 2007 (CET) :::It'll get trashed anyway. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 20:38, 22 November 2007 (CET) Apparantly a runner is only good when it has a speed boost up 100% of the time. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 23:08, 22 November 2007 (CET) :Fixed. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 02:29, 23 November 2007 (CET) ::One still remains, unfortunately. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 00:51, 24 November 2007 (CET) There's alot of votes so if need be i don't want to pick out all the ones i think need review. Overall, i feel alot of the high votes need a look over, the build is not meta and really isnt nearly as effective as it seems. Sure, it has the survivability and versatile support skills of the other two near dupe builds, but BHA really isn't a good pvp skill. Any half brained player can dodge it. At range, even a 2 second KD is potentially not enough without good timing and a 90% slowed target could also dodge. Since your targets are back or midliners, if you close the gap you're in danger of overextending plus its obviouse when a bow ranger is charging right up next to you, and its not too hard to kite yourself. Overall, i think some of the votes need to be reviewed.Bob fregman 20:31, 23 November 2007 (CET) :It's TA meta for sure. — Skakid9090 03:27, 24 November 2007 (CET) :You actually think it's a "dupe" build? — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 05:25, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::Dupe in the sense that it uses the same skills bar BHA. I didnt insult it for being similar, i just compared their survivability and versatility.Bob fregman 05:33, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::It is fairly effective for TA, but that's just one of its categories, and even in TA it's nothing great.Bob fregman 05:35, 24 November 2007 (CET) :::That is your opinion. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 05:36, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::::Yeah I know, forgive me if i ever stated otherwise.Bob fregman 05:45, 24 November 2007 (CET) :::::You don't think it's a good build. So vote accordingly and provide a reason why. This is not an issue regarding administration. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 05:46, 24 November 2007 (CET) :::::Reviewed the ratings page. Some 5-5-5 votes may be under question, such as the ones without reason. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 05:51, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::::::(conflict). Most of the votes don't have a good explanation. In addition, the build is highly unimpressive in a few of the areas its tagged for. I dont think alot of the voters have ever used BHA before. Literally, anyone with a brain can juke it with their eyes closed.Bob fregman 05:53, 24 November 2007 (CET) :::::::The "you don't think BHA is good" point is irrelevant here. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 05:56, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::I'm not saying that BHA is bad because i think it is, im providing a factual explanation of why it isn't good, or at least, not as good as people have rated it. Bob fregman 06:26, 24 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::Your "fact" is based on you being unable to hit targets with BHA. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 06:36, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::False. My "fact" Is that BHA moves extremely slow. Because of this, i said that it is extremely easy to dodge.Bob fregman 06:42, 24 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::Actually, it just has a high arc. Again, your fact is derived from you being unable to hit targets with BHA. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 06:46, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::::And the high arc means it takes longer to reach the target so for all intents and purposes, it's slower. I've never mentioned anything about myself using BHA(particularly since i rearely ever use it) so your repeated statement is nothing more than an assumption on my own characteristics instead of an objective statement on the topic at hand. Honestly, you dont even have any arguments when you are involved in disputes, it's almost painful. I provided my case and put it up for admin review. Either they'll do something, or they wont. I don't even understand why your involved. Either way, im done with this. If something happens, it happens, and if it doesnt, then it doesnt.Bob fregman 07:24, 24 November 2007 (CET) :::::::::::::And I am saying that you are judging a build solely on your beliefs of how BHA works, and that a high arc means a build should not be rated high. That is not a case that requires administrative attention. If you're struggling so much to see what I'm getting at then there really is no argument here. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 07:28, 24 November 2007 (CET) ::::::::::::::Psst, he means that bad vote removal has nothing to do with BHA or if the build is good or bad. - Anon Tbh, BHA has only ever worked when used in conjunction with KDs, Shadow Walk, or lackluster opponents. - Krowman 07:58, 24 November 2007 (CET) :Shock and Bull's Strike are awesome. =D — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 22:39, 24 November 2007 (CET) Ajmaresh's vote shows he doesn't understand the build or game mechanics. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 14:55, 24 November 2007 (CET) :Frvwfr2 fixed it. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 15:11, 24 November 2007 (CET) Guild of Deals' got no clue what HB is. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 17:56, 24 November 2007 (CET) Actually, the build can be used by heroes, which is what User:Tomoko said. Heroes have good reaction for interupts which make them able to use the build nicely. Also, I've seen a few top 1000 people using heroes to run this mesmer build. Small micro-management is required on choosing/locking a target for the mesmer. So in summary, Tomoko's vote should not be removed. - Jak123X 00:53, 5 December 2007 (CET) All votes show either complete misunderstanding of the build (you don't lose any energy neither does the build rely on critical hits when there are 3 skills to be used to remove enchantments) or offer no reasonable explanation to their vote (self explanatory when viewed). Please remove. Unreal Havoc 01:10, 26 November 2007 (CET) Shadowsin hates AoM dervs because he knows nothing about GW. — Skakid9090 01:20, 26 November 2007 (CET) :I changed my vote xD i was going to after you added IAS anyway. Jeese chill, NPA. --Shadowsin 03:37, 26 November 2007 (CET) ::Saying someone doesn't know somethign is not NPA. Saying someone is something (e.g. "ur fat poofaec kk lusr l8r") is NPA. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 04:01, 26 November 2007 (CET) :::._. it was still kinda going a little far. *shuffles feet*--Shadowsin 04:06, 26 November 2007 (CET) ::::A shadowstep Derv shouldn't have an IAS because he teleports and the IAS has an activation time which preps monks for the spike. Which is fail. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 04:08, 26 November 2007 (CET) :::::the shadowstep was optional ._. and a slow spike is easier to counter. Also its AoM, if the monks havn't figured it out by that than they suck xD. --Shadowsin 04:10, 26 November 2007 (CET) ::::::Hmm, yeah. Depends on the circumstances I suppose. That said, I shouldn't be giving advice when I've pulled an all nighter and am rediculously tired. [[User:Mgrinshpon|'—ǥrɩɳsɧ']][[User talk:Mgrinshpon|'ƿoɲ']] 04:12, 26 November 2007 (CET) :::::*Yawns* sleepy--Shadowsin 04:14, 26 November 2007 (CET) There also seems to be a dispute on whether or not the build in question should be deleted (see the talk page). skadid and i disagree deeply on this issue (almost a revert war), so i request admin intervention on the issue. ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ']] ( ) 04:02, 28 November 2007 (CET) Lololo that example was the best NPA example I ever saw hahaha xD. [[User:Dark_Morphon|'Dark']] [[User_talk:Dark_Morphon|'Morphon']] 15:55, 30 November 2007 (CET) I don't think it even was NPA, but thats what makes it funny. - Jak123X 01:04, 5 December 2007 (CET) Votes. Some invalid due to build changed from pure heal to hybrid. Some invalid b/c div spirit is in variants and self heal shouldn't be needed if you know how to monk. Also saying a boon monk lacks heal power (Lyssan) is just plain off IMO. [[User:Swiftslash|'Swiftslash \\']] ( *''sandbox'') 17:48, 27 November 2007 (CET) Just hear me out before going "LIEK LOL PARABARRAGE FTL!". k? that being said, some of the ratings seem like they are based on the premise that this is for general PvE. for example, krowman started talking about nukers and tainted flesh , when neither of those builds exist in conventional ToPK (okay, mebbe a hero MM with tainted). others compare it to splinter barrage for some reason. as good as S-barrage is, that's not a great premise for a 1-1-1 or 0-0-0 vote. ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ']] ( ) 17:35, 2 December 2007 (CET) There's also a 5-5-5 "balancing only" vote. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 03:57, 3 December 2007 (CET) :damn elitists. a paragon build that actually works gets blammed into oblivion because a few elitists think that its not as good as "other" builds. the build in question isnt that bad if you actually play it. it could be better. but it doesnt qualify for a "OMGEPICFAIL...BANHAMMER". Alpha fireborn 22:54, 3 December 2007 (CET) ::Yea, it does. Thanks for the succinct verbage there. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 23:13, 3 December 2007 (CET) :::Heh, he's mad because we trashed the build based on the fact that it isn't as gopod as other builds out there. - Krowman 23:15, 3 December 2007 (CET) :::: I'm mad because people like you have been trashing "decent" builds and playing the "we know best" card for a very long time. as soon as one of you posts a vote that along the lines of 0-0-0 other people start posting 0-0-0 votes that send a build that should exhist it at least other straight to the trash. whats interesting is that although you took off mine, you LEFT the ones that shouldnt even qualify as votes. Alpha fireborn 23:53, 3 December 2007 (CET) :::::(EC)Take a look at his user page and his talk page. Implicity saying you (Krowman) fail at life. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 23:55, 3 December 2007 (CET) ::::::Well, these things happen. Armond, Auron & myself all gave more generous ratings than what Alpha fireborn is complaining about. His complaint is misguided and unconstructive. - Krowman 00:00, 4 December 2007 (CET) :::::::Alpha needs to take a wiki-vacation... but he did have a semi-valid point. why did you mention nukers and tainters on a ToPK build's rating page, and why did multiple other trash-level ratings (1-0-0's and the like) pop up based on those (somewhat) flawed points? (I realize that the builds you mention exist in ToPK, but they aren't too popular) ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ']] ( ) 03:12, 4 December 2007 (CET) ::::::::Also, "What does this do that the team needs that a normal splinter barrager can't do instead?" doesnt exactly seem like a good reason for a rating. Please just humor me and explain the votes in question as opposed to playing the "Holier Than Thou" card. ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ']] ( ) 03:18, 4 December 2007 (CET) :::::::::You can do more damage with Splinter Barrage, you can reduce damage more easily with SY! Barrage. Frees up a lot of skill slots, makes better use of skills, professions, etc. - Krowman 06:01, 4 December 2007 (CET) ::::::::: Paragon with a bow and a pet.... Nuff said... *BAN HAMMER SMASH*--Shadowsin 06:13, 4 December 2007 (CET) ::::::Ok... Just incase that wasnt enough for you folks.EDIT:Capslock fails. >:O only one arrow carries anthem of flames effect the other 3-6 are just normal arrows so in effect the build does not work, so the people defending it have no right to bitch for low votes especially since it doesnt do what it is supoosed to. --Shadowsin 06:23, 4 December 2007 (CET) Thou art holier than us mere mortals, Shadowsin. Thanketh thee for enlightening us with thine intelligent reasoning. ~ [[User:ZamaneeJinn|'ʑʌɱʌɳəəɺɨɳɳ']] ( ) 04:45, 8 December 2007 (CET) Someone requested my vote be looked at, and a sock. --Shadowsin 09:43, 3 December 2007 (CET) :The removed author vote is back and unchanged.--Shadowsin 02:30, 4 December 2007 (CET) ::PvX:WELLed. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 02:35, 4 December 2007 (CET) :::Thank God~--Shadowsin 02:36, 4 December 2007 (CET) Clearly wrong votes. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 22:46, 3 December 2007 (CET) :Yeah. - Krowman 23:15, 3 December 2007 (CET) Biased creator vote. -- [[User:Scottie theNerd|'Scottie_theNerd']] (argue) 09:03, 4 December 2007 (CET) :Yeah, but it's got a long way to go before the build gets favored. We can just skip the drama that often accompanies the removal of someone's vote in this case. - Krowman 21:51, 4 December 2007 (CET) Jimeno's vote. Rated extremely low. Saying that the old assacaster had tons of KD's, when it only had one more. Comparing something that cannot be used, with a viable build. E/A build maintains energy throughout long battles and is able to keep up deadly paradox, while continously spamming deadly arts chain.- Jak123X 01:07, 5 December 2007 (CET) Also, Zuranthium votes without looking at build. Says build includes no rez sig when clearly optional slots contain rez sig. Did not look at build before voting. - Jak123X 04:52, 7 December 2007 (CET) :No Zuranthium is saying that the build doesnt belong in RA/TA because it has to use a res sig in the last slot. not that it doesnt. otherwise he is saying you need a skill in the last slot to make it good.--Shadowsin 05:28, 7 December 2007 (CET) ::the old assacaster actually had more kd because you can kd on demand with soj every 20 secs without meeting previous requirements as the other signet. i revoted, the rate stay low as ever, because spamming dancing daggers is stupid and cause no pressure and who cares about the fact you can have energy or pwn bad players etc. remember pvxwiki started to have great builds, not horrible builds. and dont whine over a bad vote that is perfectly legal. --Jim Eno 22:24, 8 December 2007 (CET) :::20R =/= KD Galore. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 22:27, 8 December 2007 (CET) ::::2 Kd skills, one non conditional, and both useful and "in combo", it's pretty much the max you can have on gw withouth being a hammer warrior or being something stupid like someone with thunderclap. so, yes, that's kd galore. pvp more pls. --Jim Eno 22:33, 8 December 2007 (CET) :::::No u. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 22:36, 8 December 2007 (CET) If anything remove Styxke's vote. It's nothing to brag about, but I'll rate it in the great category miright?-- [[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] (''talk''/ ) 22:29, 8 December 2007 (CET) Unreal Havoc votes as if it's a PvP build. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 23:37, 5 December 2007 (CET) :Hardly. Unreal Havoc 03:50, 6 December 2007 (CET) Decent offense, poor defense. Deep wound doesn't stack, Unsuspecting Strike is conditionally expensive, making both skills a waste of energy if you have to use the chain twice on a target. '' -Unreal Havoc :What? Since when is Critical Agility poor defense. DW doesn't need to stack, since the spike is only executed once. [[User:Shogunshen| '''Shen']]( ) 03:52, 6 December 2007 (CET) Since when is Critical Agility decent defense? Does that remove conditions? Stop degen? Block attacks? Mobs will own you. Execute the spike once? LMAO what you going to do auto attack afterwards? Seriously just stop, get off my fucking nuts for 5 minutes and accept my vote, which is reasonably constructed, for what it is without crying about it like a little bitch. Unreal Havoc 03:56, 6 December 2007 (CET) :Monk —''' Skakid9090' 03:57, 6 December 2007 (CET) Yes because Monks are so reliable outside of Guild Groups in PVE. 'Unreal Havoc' 03:59, 6 December 2007 (CET) ::It does seem like it could be better.....--Shadowsin 04:00, 6 December 2007 (CET) ::and if you need to use the chain more than once, that means you're attacking the wrong target or your whole party sucks. - Y0_ich_halt 15:39, 6 December 2007 (CET) :::Yes because every mob in PVE has a caster, then what? You sit around doing nothing while the rest of your team finishes off the mob? This build comes across as a a build designed to pick of a single target and basically gank it while the rest of your party deals with other threats, the only thing is not every target in GW is going to die with one run of that mediocre chain, unless your farming Kappa on Shing Jea. In any event there's no way I'd use it over other better builds for PVE, I don't like it, I reflected that in my vote. Good night. 'Unreal Havoc' 17:17, 6 December 2007 (CET) ::::No, its a build which kills stuff. If you see something whut needs killin', then kill it with your skills. — Skuld 09:35, 7 December 2007 (CET) :::::impressive how you compressed my page-long comment into this simple sentence. skuld = roxxorz. - Y0_ich_halt 13:50, 7 December 2007 (CET) Beast194's, Didi's vote.--image:ViYsig3.png ([[User talk:Victoryisyours|''talk]]/ ) 22:08, 6 December 2007 (CET) Removal of some of these votes. Voidwalker: Suggesting of Mark of Rodgort, GfTE is for energy mainly, no real explanation of vote. Swiftslash: Attacks spam high damage plus conjure, burning, and DW. 2-2-2 isn't suitable imo. Amryn Sa: You don't rate a shock axe 4-4-2 because it can be blinded, do you?--image:ViYsig3.png (''talk''/ ) 23:16, 6 December 2007 (CET) :My vote still stands. Merciless is bad imo, blazing is meh, focused is pretty much unused. [[User:Swiftslash|'Swiftslash \\']] ( *''sandbox'') 23:28, 6 December 2007 (CET) ::Still bad vote. There's plenty of adrenal skills. Don't use your opinion in a vote. Unused doesn't mean bad. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 23:34, 6 December 2007 (CET) While i agree with his sentiment, Napalm flames vote is innacurate, as with the level of crit strikes the build loses no energy from DA and has good gains from Critical Strike and auto-attacking.Bob fregman 00:46, 7 December 2007 (CET) :Attack skills cost 5 energy. The 4 Energy from the critical hit only makes up for the Dark Apostasy energy cost. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 01:43, 8 December 2007 (CET) ::Throw in Critical Eye, there's your 5 energy. Unreal Havoc 01:45, 8 December 2007 (CET) :::There's nothing about Critical Eye that makes you crit 100%. And you get 1 energy back from it. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 01:47, 8 December 2007 (CET) Critical Eye + Zealous Daggers + Critical Strikes @13 = 5 energy on a critical hit? Correct? Wild Blow and Critical Strike both cause a critical hit. You will make energy back from auto attacking with Zealous aside from any Criticals made which if they remove enchantments isn't a bad thing. Unreal Havoc 01:49, 8 December 2007 (CET) :Critical Eye + Zealous + CS at 13 returns 1+1+3=5 Energy. The attack skill + DA cost 9. So you sacrifice having a spike with a generic Shattering Assault build, to have less enchantment removal and lower damage, and lower energy management. — [[User:Rapta|'Rapta']] 19px (talk| ) 01:51, 8 December 2007 (CET) Well at least someone had the common sense to explain where I was going wrong. thankyou. Unreal Havoc 01:54, 8 December 2007 (CET) :You are forgetting, as i did, that you are not ALWAYS removing enchants. which is when DA activates, meaning if your making critcals other wise, oh say Crit strike? unless this person is a dervish enchant spammer NoOb you will removed all of their enchants and still have energy to spare. plus, critstrike gives + 6 energy when its used,and btw. I actually tried this build, and energy wasnt a problem.--Shadowsin 10:07, 8 December 2007 (CET) ::Also, crit strike gives you back another 3. -- Wizardboy777(T/ /Sysop) 03:01, 9 December 2007 (CET) Drownz's 0-0-0. He's been going around either voting 5-5-5 or 0-0-0 on all builds. — ク Eloc ' 20:06, 5 December 2007 (CET) :Please remove Shogunshen's and Bob Fregman's votes as this build isn't in the RA category. — 'ク Eloc ' 03:55, 6 December 2007 (CET) ::Shoguns doesn't mention anything like that. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2]] (T/ /Sysop) 02:31, 8 December 2007 (CET) :::He edited it. But I don't think the build deserves a 1-0-0 when other people are giving on average 4-4-5. — ク Eloc ' 06:16, 8 December 2007 (CET) ::::IMO if you just throw around major changes to a build(like its category) i think you should need to notify people who voted on it.Bob fregman 05:44, 9 December 2007 (CET) :::::IMO I didn't remove the category. — 'ク Eloc ''' 11:43, 9 December 2007 (CET) ::::::I didn't say you did.Bob fregman 15:51, 9 December 2007 (CET) Few voters without contribs.[[User:Teh Uber Pwnzer| — Teh Uber Pwnzer']] 00:44, 9 December 2007 (CET) :12?-- [[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] [[User talk:Victoryisyours|''talk]] 16:10, 9 December 2007 (CET) ::dang. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 19:07, 9 December 2007 (CET) :::Victory, red link =/= no contribs.[[User:Teh Uber Pwnzer|''' — Teh Uber Pwnzer']] 00:27, 10 December 2007 (CET) Current meta doesn't mean 4 in effectiveness. I'd also like to see a better alternative. [[User:Shogunshen| '''Shen']]( ) 18:54, 9 December 2007 (CET) :frvwfr2 took care of it. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 19:01, 9 December 2007 (CET) ::Just cause it's current meta, doesn't mean it's good. — ク Eloc ' 00:38, 10 December 2007 (CET) :::Um, actually, it's meta because it's good. If it wasn't good, people wouldn't use it, and it wouldn't be meta. '¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 01:33, 10 December 2007 (CET) ::::Remember that shitty hammer bash monk that was posted because it was meta? 72.150.100.28 01:44, 10 December 2007 (CET) :::::Yes. I deleted it about a week ago because it was in grace expired. It was a joke. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 01:47, 10 December 2007 (CET) ::::::The reason for posting it was because a top guild ran it in one battle as a joke, and, for a day or so, it became meta. 72.150.100.28 02:07, 10 December 2007 (CET) :::::::That was a joke, not a build that has been standard fare in every non-gimmick GvG bar since GW's inception. Make better allusions. - Krowman 07:30, 10 December 2007 (CET) ::::::::That was in response to "it's meta because it's good. If it wasn't good, people wouldn't use it, and it wouldn't be meta." Not the shock axe. 74.241.165.108 23:17, 10 December 2007 (CET) :::::::::The hammer bash monk was never meta, so your point is moot. -Auron 03:36, 11 December 2007 (CET) Sock. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 01:46, 10 December 2007 (CET) :Resolved. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 01:48, 10 December 2007 (CET) ::Oi that was fast. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 01:51, 10 December 2007 (CET) :::Isn't much else going on on my watchlist right now :P ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(sysop) 02:00, 10 December 2007 (CET) Build overhauled, would appreciate a vote reset. Thanks in advance. --Wyvern 06:39, 10 December 2007 (CET) :You're welcome. — [[User:Tycn|'Tycn']] (''talk''* ) 07:26, 10 December 2007 (CET) Elocs vote, which is also in violation of PW:1RVBob fregman 21:05, 10 December 2007 (CET) :yours doesn't provide any reason either tbh. - Y0_ich_halt 21:12, 10 December 2007 (CET) ::Tbh not seeing where the damage comes from means the vote fails. Lord of all tyria 21:15, 10 December 2007 (CET) :::yes - Y0_ich_halt 21:16, 10 December 2007 (CET) ::::My reasoning perfectly explains my vote. I said it's a great build, and i gave a great vote. I didn't think that with a build like that, that i needed to be real specific.Bob fregman 21:55, 10 December 2007 (CET) :::::I didn't revert anything. Also, just because I don't see where the damage comes from, doesn't necessarily mean it's a bad build. — ク Eloc ''' 03:34, 11 December 2007 (CET) Possible socks. [[User:Viet| '''viзти]][[User talk:Viet|'αмзѕз']] 06:56, 11 December 2007 (CET) :Done. ~~ [[User:frvwfr2|'frvwfr2']] (T/ /Sysop) 20:58, 11 December 2007 (CET) No way this has energy management with no zealous and storm djinn's on an already energy-hungry bar. — Skakid HoHoHo 21:55, 11 December 2007 (CET) Why'd this get deleted all of a sudden? --Mafaraxas 22:49, 11 December 2007 (CET) :Because it sucked.-- [[User:Victoryisyours|'Victoryisyours']] [[User talk:Victoryisyours|''+talk]] 22:52, 11 December 2007 (CET) :Arguments that Storm Djinn's Haste "synergizes" with Critical Strikes had little weight. Fact of the matter is, energy lost casting SDH constantly as a cover enchantment and lost while moving presents a huge problem. [[User:Shogunshen| '''Shen']]( ) 22:58, 11 December 2007 (CET) Whoops, my mistake. I was correcting a bunch of hateful vandalism this morning, and when the build was moved, the edit history displayed it as a new page. I can restore it to its pre-move status. - Krowman 05:12, 12 December 2007 (CET) :Nvm that, I see that Armond deleted it once before I did, and the vandal recreated the page. Any concerns with the build should be brought up with him, so as not to undermine his authority as an admin. - Krowman 05:15, 12 December 2007 (CET) Build has been changed, votes are no longer valid. Please remove. Unreal Havoc 05:04, 12 December 2007 (CET) :Gotcha. - Krowman 07:25, 12 December 2007 (CET) ::Thankyou Krowman. Unreal Havoc 09:42, 12 December 2007 (CET) Sock and a clearly wrong vote. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]]( ) 00:54, 13 December 2007 (CET) :Removed. PvE only skills are always great to use on PvE chars, as they were created to be imba in the first place. - Krowman 04:10, 13 December 2007 (CET) ::Appreciate it. Took your advice too. Unfortunately, there are two more trash votes. I mean trash literally and...well...look at the talk page please. Thanks in advance. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]] has 13:32, 13 December 2007 (CET) :::Heh, with all my enumerations, a 'See talk page' would be quite sufficient a reason now. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]] has 04:39, 14 December 2007 (CET) ::::I think you need to better substantiate your vote for it to warrant a 5-5-5. Unreal Havoc 10:49, 14 December 2007 (CET) :::::Drop your pathetically frangible air of superiority. You've yet to respond to any of my points with anything nearing evidence. That you've changed your vote to be a little less starkly revealing of your misunderstanding of basic game mechanics only betrays your continued refusal of the key arguments I've layed out on the talk page. I think you need to better substantiate every comment you've made and have yet to make. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]] has 22:51, 14 December 2007 (CET) ::::::With comments like that you wonder why I have such a big problem with you? LMAO! —''The preceding unsigned comment was added by'' Unreal Havoc ( ) }. Help me out here admins, I'm getting frustrated. The rating page retains conflicting ratings so stauchly supported, yet without a basis of fact. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]] has 22:51, 14 December 2007 (CET) ::::::::The fact is Ap is Baed. :P Having your warriors work for you is baed. No heavy prots is baed. infinite Aegis is like sex, if a battle with a group lasted moar than 20 seconds. and just becaause all the people on your MSN liek the build doesnt mean that the rest of us do :D. --Shadowsin 08:17, 16 December 2007 (CET) :::::::::Could stop with the 'baed' please? Anyway, the discussion is going in circles at this point; either accept Shadow's vote or have a mod make a final decision already. --Mafaraxas 10:21, 16 December 2007 (CET) Auron's post taught me a good deal. Build's been revamped, please remove the votes. Thanks. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]] has 17:40, 16 December 2007 (CET) :Take a look at my comments if you would. The Divine Spirit/AP comment might be null, or at least the AP part. Other than that, that's the biggest issue I see with the build. Other than that if AP gets removed, "Pop goes the weasel," or in your case, your skill bar. cedave ( _buildpage) 18:00, 16 December 2007 (CET) ::Yea, I sorta overlooked that. Disregard my previous comment, I've changed it back to the original version. [[User:Shogunshen| Shen]] has 18:41, 16 December 2007 (CET) common HA team — Skakid HoHoHo 21:36, 19 December 2007 (EST) :wuzurpoint -- Armond Warblade 02:00, 20 December 2007 (EST) Alleskapot and Dark Paladin X's vote under "flagrantly misrepresenting a build's ability"' — [[User:Teh Uber Pwnzer|Uber']][[User_talk:Teh Uber Pwnzer|'iz']] 08:40, 20 December 2007 (EST) Ugh, 2nd time. Please restore. I didn't see any reason in the deletion log for the deletion of it and nothing is on the talk page. — ク Eloc ''' 02:43, 21 December 2007 (EST) :Considering there's no talk page, I don't see what you're talking about. Do you plan to make some significant change? The build will be trashed, as at was once already. [[User:Shogunshen| '''Shen]] has 12:11, 21 December 2007 (EST) ::It was in trial phase. There was no need for it to be deleted. — ク Eloc ''' 18:00, 21 December 2007 (EST) :::And it was in trial for no reason. You didn't change it then, and unless you plan to change it now, there's no reason it need be restored. Unless, of course, you would like it for your user space. [[User:Shogunshen| '''Shen]] has 18:02, 21 December 2007 (EST) ::::Trial phase for criticism. — ク Eloc ''' 18:03, 21 December 2007 (EST) :::::The criticism was there: Dagger dervs fail. If you were talking about constructive criticism, I'd say it'd be much too optimistic to expect anyone to try to salvage a bad build with a bad concept. [[User:Shogunshen| '''Shen]] has 18:06, 21 December 2007 (EST)